Stealing from drinking games

[Callan S.]

If I wanted to steal certain qualties from drinking games, without using drink, how would I do it?

The qualities I'm looking to swipe are: That there is no resource gain - you only ever lose or draw even (even could be considered a win though). Every time you fail, you drink...which actually makes it more likely you'll fail in future (beer spiral!).

Also, I want the quality that has people conciously know they can only ever fail or draw even, yet they still get into it rather than trying to conserve their sobriety 'resource'. Part of it is the draw of the penalty itself - it's not entirely a penalty. Part of it may be that once the players are in, they are in. Though I'm not sure I like that - it seems to rely on force 'Oh, I'd be breaking the rules if I backed out, I have no choice - okay, time to play then' rather than a desire to be in on the risk 'The rules say I can back out, yet I still take on the risk/punishment'.

Further, I want to maintain the quality that the penalty is a real world event, not an in game event. If you were failing at cards, the result doesn't occur within the game (eg, ie you don't get less cards). It's an entirely meta game penalty. It doesn't feed into the game, it's a game result that ends at a real world event.

[Ben Lehman]

The element that I think you're missing is that "penalties" in drinking games are actually rewards.  Presuming that the people playing the game want to get drunk, it's not a bad thing to have to drink at all.  If someone "won" a drinking game and never had to take a drink, they'd get not nearly satisfaction with the drunk "losers."

yrs--
--Ben

[Callan S.]

I think what I'm missing is: That a real world indicator doesn't force a person to think that some part of their tactics were wrong. A player can simply practice damage control to dampen down it's effect. Or reframe the indicator as a bonus of some sort.

To me that's bloat play. You never lose, you just do more and more convoluted resource management to make the penalty a reward. A simple CRPG example are kamakaze runs, where you die, then run from the graveyard back to the battle, chip a bit more away, die, run back, chip - etc. There's no elegance of tactic there, it's bloated. Elegance comes from stopping at some point and saying 'I did something wrong, time for me to change', not from doing the same thing and getting even more convoluted with the results so as to avoid ever being wrong.

Disagreements with this: Strictly PM responces. I wrote this not to foster arguement here, but to as a way to understand what I want from the design.

If get what I'm aiming at, does this come down to having an essay which says something like the above paragraph? Then leaving it to whether the purchaser gets it? I have the sad feeling that the answer is yes...but I've got the urge to do better than that. Should I leave that urge behind?

[Callan S.]

Click! The game rules ask the players to write down their own fail status (and own win status)! And, I think, it's specifically left to that player to adjudicate when they have met either status (though everyone else can obviously form their own opinions and rib the player if so desired). I think I'll offer some very mechanical ways of determining failure, since I like that. But the player will decide if they use that or some other benchmark of their own devising.

I think that's what I was doing with the 'Bid your HP' system - it's a very specific way a player could choose to use as their way of losing.

[PhilV]

Hi Callan

I have some thoughts on such a mechanic which I believe needs to be tied into a concept that reinforces that "losing" still has a positive effect on the player but that the rate that they lose at has negative connotations. For example - in a drinking game, players actually want to lose, but they don't want to lose at a rate that gets them drunk too quickly so that everyone else is still sober and laughing at their inebriated condition. Eventually it gets to a point where players don't want to lose because if they have one more drink they will...pop! Messy! So ideally, a game that follows this pattern should probably have a mechanic where losing isn't a negative thing but the rate of losing is of major concern as the game goes on.

I have posted a proof of concept in the following thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20351.0 which I believe supports this type of play. I would be interested to see your own execution of such an idea.

Cheers
Phil V

[Callan S.]

Hmm, I think your mechanic provides a focus on priority, but not on setting personal goals and completing them. Ie, the player isn't encouraged or asked how many issues he intends to deal with within the time limit. So without that benchmark to evaluate his play by, your left to consider as a fellow player, what he placed as a priority. As I understand narrativism, I think it'd be a very useful mechanic for supporting nar and I really hope you cook up a PDF!